Yes, my post was in response to Dave. You highlighted Dave's post and my reply to his post. And you said I was wrong when you consider the raising of children as a gender role.

If you change the argument, then you can't quote my statements as your strawman, anymore.

I mean, I'll gladly oblige you, if you want to correct someone. Tell me what you want me to post, so you can correct me. This way you can say what you want and we can at least maintain logic and continuity, perhaps.

Most people don't like the suggestion that such fundamental tendencies of their behaviour could be because of biology, and not just a social construction or their free will.

Its rather like the cognitive dissonance of young earth creationists who work as geologists.

Or scarier than that. Neuroscientists seem to find it quite disconcerting when they find out that many actions show up in brain activity up to half a second before the person makes the conscious choice. It kinda shatters the idea that perhaps our "free will" is somehow connected to a noncorporeal "soul", with that "soul" being somehow our the true, immortal self.

Me, I don't mind. To point out why, I like to ask people to define where the boundary between themselves and the rest of the world is. At the skin? What about all the bacteria and tiny animals that live on your skin? What about the bacteria in your intestines? It was recently shown that those bacteria seem to have a direct pathway to the brain, with less than half a second delay (so nerves are involved). It has been conclusively shown that the gut bacteria is absolutely necessary for survival; without them, you die. (Poop transplants are a real thing, if you suffer from e.g. antibiotic-related persistent diarrhea.) If you take a human baby, and grow it in isolation, what you get is a broken thing, not a person: you become human when you grow in interaction with others. Much of what you think of as yourself only exists in interaction with others.

When you realize you are not just an isolated "soul", but a sheer wonder of biology and atomic machinery and quantum phenomena, completely interwoven to the surrounding biome and other humans (and often animals of other species - you know what I mean if you have a dog), you realize there are bigger, more interesting and more important questions than "soul" or "free will" to work on. And how utterly retarded identity politics and group-driven equality of outcome politics are.

Most people don't like the suggestion that such fundamental tendencies of their behaviour could be because of biology, and not just a social construction or their free will.

Its rather like the cognitive dissonance of young earth creationists who work as geologists.

Or scarier than that. Neuroscientists seem to find it quite disconcerting when they find out that many actions show up in brain activity up to half a second before the person makes the conscious choice. It kinda shatters the idea that perhaps our "free will" is somehow connected to a noncorporeal "soul", with that "soul" being somehow our the true, immortal self.

Me, I don't mind. To point out why, I like to ask people to define where the boundary between themselves and the rest of the world is. At the skin? What about all the bacteria and tiny animals that live on your skin? What about the bacteria in your intestines? It was recently shown that those bacteria seem to have a direct pathway to the brain, with less than half a second delay (so nerves are involved). It has been conclusively shown that the gut bacteria is absolutely necessary for survival; without them, you die. (Poop transplants are a real thing, if you suffer from e.g. antibiotic-related persistent diarrhea.) If you take a human baby, and grow it in isolation, what you get is a broken thing, not a person: you become human when you grow in interaction with others. Much of what you think of as yourself only exists in interaction with others.

When you realize you are not just an isolated "soul", but a sheer wonder of biology and atomic machinery and quantum phenomena, completely interwoven to the surrounding biome and other humans (and often animals of other species - you know what I mean if you have a dog), you realize there are bigger, more interesting and more important questions than "soul" or "free will" to work on. And how utterly retarded identity politics and group-driven equality of outcome politics are.

I've never understood the results of this research surprising anyone. We know that we come to many conclusions without consciously plodding through all the details needed to arrive at those conclusions. That work, either rationally or irrationally handled, clearly happens somewhere below the surface, and obviously had to arrive at a conclusion, or at least approach it, before our consciousness got involved. We all know this. Our consciousness was there. We know it didn't plod through the work.

Granted, that might have been true a long time ago, but it isn't today. However, human instincts haven't changed since then and prevail, hence my comment about it women being biologically more predisposed to care for children than men.

Good luck continuing the human race without women bearing children (and that's where my quote ends BTW).Even something as simple as women being more alert to the cries to children when sleeping, this is biological stuff.Men can take full time care of the children and feed them bottled artificial crap from day 1, and the woman can go back to work the day after giving birth, and if you want to do that, well, that's your choice. But that comes at a potential price to the health and well-being of the child, both physically and in emotional growth. This is non-debatable stuff.

I said carry, not raise. (I even added an extra 3 months for recovery.) You said that women putting more time into raising children is a biological necessity because of the child-bearing part. Now you say it takes 7 years to raise a child. So you just defeated your own argument. A man could spend more time than a woman in raising a given child; no artificial womb required.

And again, it's the engineering debate all over again, how many women want to do that?Should there be a mandated 50/50 corporate quota for that? i.e. companies hiring 50% women who's male partners take care of the kids?Also, how many men want to do that?And again, is it a social conditioning thing, or is it biological. The scientific answer to that is obvious, it's mostly biological.

As for my own circumstances, then original plan was that I stayed home and looked after the kids while Mrs EEVblog went back to work (after 12-18 months or whatever).Neither of us wanted that, but it's what made the most sense. i.e. She had the career and the better paying job, and I had a side business I could continue from home. But then it flipped and my business got bigger.

But that comes at a potential price to the health and well-being of the child, both physically and in emotional growth. This is non-debatable stuff.

The most emotionally damaged humans make babies. Kids who were abused by their priests grow up and make babies. People born and raised and living their entire lives in slavery make babies. The human race won't end if males and females decided, for whatever reason, to not segregate their work or parenting roles strictly based on gender. This is non-debatable stuff. Babies are easy to make. And they're surprisingly hard to kill. Say a male caregiver has 10x the chance of accidentally killing their baby, the child mortality rate is still better than it was 200 years ago.

Did EEV channel and forum put the pants back on you before the kids turned into broken husks with empty dreams? I'd bet you did a better job in the interim that even the average mother of the world.

If I were to stretch your words out of context as you do mine, you'd be saying that if there were more women engineers and more male nurses, we would somehow no longer be able to procreate. And the 10 billion people on the planet would die off, leaving the planet to the pig and the apes.

That starts by saying women aren't going into STEM, and aren't going into engineering. Its true that they are under represented in engineering, but in the UK 52% of STEM students are now female. I think the figures are similar for the US. At what point are they no longer under represented?

Family friendly? All of that only for women?And they talk of "ways to minimize bias?"

Quote

13:19 ...and we need to empower individuals that they can become leaders.

It sounds like they want to train an army of women to take over and replace the leaders with themselves so it will turn into a women's world.

I know someone who worked in the 1960's on systems for Insurance companies. She was apart of a large group of women. She told me that the men who put them there gave them most of the work and they took the credit and they decreased their pensions and increased there own.

I mean the time they were born of not introducing them initially in an environment of things like gender clothes, perfume and lipstick but that would apply to both genders.

It's up to the parents, you get no say in that, and neither should the state. Subject to stuff that is deemed to be "abusive".

Quote

1:00:01... where students are already showing that they have an aptitude for physics for solving physics and puzzles and problems that might be somewhere that we can introduce engineering to emm, to girls and to boys, we get a lot of boys in our programmes.

That's what I like to hear.

If that is what they are doing it sounds good.

But what about those who are disadvantaged because their parents or teachers didn't have the foresight to start with and I question this:aptitude

Natural ability to do somethingI question that word.

Expect them to know it naturally?It seems to go against what they are encouraging if that is what I think they are saying.

Some people are interested and need help where things are not as obvious or where access and resources are limited and I hope that they don't mean it like that.

I dunno how accurate this is. But check it.https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality200 years ago, before all this feminist stuff, when women really knew how to stay at home making sammiches and taking care of babies, nearly 1/3 of babies died by age 5.Today, 4.3%, globally. I suppose this includes the least developed nations. 1% in first world countries.We weren't on the verge of extinction back then, nor now.

Gimme 10 healthy babies and a set of ear plugs, and I'll bet you a million dollars I'll get at least 7 of them to age 5. And if I didn't, social services would.

But what about those who are disadvantaged because their parents or teachers didn't have the foresight to start with and I question this:aptitude

Natural ability to do somethingI question that word.

Expect them to know it naturally?It seems to go against what they are encouraging if that is what I think they are saying.

Some people are interested and need help where things are not as obvious or where access and resources are limited and I hope that they don't mean it like that.

Your parents are yet another part of the lucky dip of life.As is the country and region you were born, your parents socio-economic situation, etc very much determine your chances and upbringing in life.

That starts by saying women aren't going into STEM, and aren't going into engineering. Its true that they are under represented in engineering, but in the UK 52% of STEM students are now female. I think the figures are similar for the US. At what point are they no longer under represented?

They won't stop finding something that is problematic.It's not STEM any more? ok, it's EE. Oh, it's not EE any more, oh it's ME. Oh, it's not ME any more, it's aeronautical engineering. It's turtles all the way down.Unless you try and count a trade like plumbing or electrician, then the university SJW's suddenly don't care any more...

Your parents are yet another part of the lucky dip of life.As is the country and region you were born, your parents socio-economic situation, etc very much determine your chances and upbringing in life.

Yes, my post was in response to Dave. You highlighted Dave's post and my reply to his post. And you said I was wrong when you consider the raising of children as a gender role.

If you change the argument, then you can't quote my statements as your strawman, anymore.

I mean, I'll gladly oblige you, if you want to correct someone. Tell me what you want me to post, so you can correct me. This way you can say what you want and we can at least maintain logic and continuity, perhaps.

People get confused with who said what in such long threads, especially when responding to posts containing so many quotes, often with the names removed. It doesn't mean anyone's playing strawman, changing the argument or whatever. Try not to be so cynical. Go back and you'll find I mostly agree with you, not entirely but I can certainly see your point.

I have not watched it, but some sort of presentation on gender in engineering:

First 9’45” is nothing but virtue signalling and sellf righteous sanctimonious back slapping, the rest is largely fashionable buzzwords with nothing at all relevant to engineering or technology.

There was a question at 47’50” about dealing with accusation of tokenism and affirmative action hiring. One speaker answered that any such accusation should be shut down by effectively shaming the accuser(s). Yeah, because that’s really going to make the divisiveness and resentment go away.

First 9’45” is nothing but virtue signalling and sellf righteous sanctimonious back slapping, the rest is largely fashionable buzzwords with nothing at all relevant to engineering or technology.

There was a question at 47’50” about dealing with accusation of tokenism and affirmative action hiring. One speaker answered that any such accusation should be shut down by effectively shaming the accuser(s). Yeah, because that’s really going to make the divisiveness and resentment go away.

I mostly agree with that, but there was one interesting exchange with a young woman in the audience, making Canada seem a lot like the UK. The part where the young woman said she liked physics at school, but nobody ever helped her see its relevance to a career. There was comments about schoolkids seeing physics as a dead subject, which is weird. There were also the kind of comments which lead to the "Why did you study engineering? You got good grades in school." mentality, where the speaker said youngsters associate "engineer" with "tradesman".

I mostly agree with that, but there was one interesting exchange with a young woman in the audience, making Canada seem a lot like the UK. The part where the young woman said she liked physics at school, but nobody ever helped her see its relevance to a career. There was comments about schoolkids seeing physics as a dead subject, which is weird. There were also the kind of comments which lead to the "Why did you study engineering? You got good grades in school." mentality, where the speaker said youngsters associate "engineer" with "tradesman".

To be fair, when I was at school in the 70s the notion of "engineering" was about a bloke coming round to fix your boiler in dirty overalls carrying a greasy spanner.

I did make it as far as the question, but by that point the vice and spiked clamps were so tight around both testicles, trying to divert the pain away from watching the video, I must've missed the answers.

First 9’45” is nothing but virtue signalling and sellf righteous sanctimonious back slapping, the rest is largely fashionable buzzwords with nothing at all relevant to engineering or technology.

You watched it all

Yeah, thanks for that, it was a toss up between that or the Rigol teardown.

They really do come across like a cult or religion.

I’m wondering if they have other videos for women in garbage collection or mining, or men in nursing or primary school teaching?

Most of them seemed like cult members, but the lady in the purple coat and long scarf seemed genuinely interested in doing a fair and balanced job. I wonder how well she fits in with the others?

You can't read much into the first few minutes of the video. This is apparently a requirement for anything done in a Canadian college these days. It comes over as highly hypocritical, admitting the college is on land stolen from the indigenous people, but not suggesting the suckers should ever get back the tiniest fraction of what was stolen.